If the central conflict of House of the Dragon can be summed up as one thing, it’s succession. The Greens and the Blacks rise against each other in two stances, the right of a King to choose his heir, and the duty of succession to follow a strict and obvious line. This very issue has come up before in history.
Look at the Lady Jane Grey.
By the year 1553, England was almost two centuries into a series of wars concerning who should be King. They had run through four distinct dynasties, a dozen monarchs, had conquered France for a brief period, attempted the same in Spain, had seen at least four civil wars, and it ended a moot point as the last male heir of the Tudor dynasty - the ultimate victors of this rabbit warren of bloodshed and bickering- was to die a childless teenager.
The teenager in question was Edward VI of England and Ireland, son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour. A devout Protestant, he looked to his heir, the defiantly Catholic Mary Tudor, and must have shuddered. His hard work, his legacy, it would be gone. So, he searched for a solution. His solution was his cousin.
When discussing the “Nine Days Queen” (a misnomer, her “reign” was technically 13 days), it’s important to understand exactly what precedents her succession was attempting to follow, and what ones it was trying to break.
The case for it was in many ways similar the argument Rhaenyra Targaryen and the Greens are making in HotD. Simply put: a king has a right to choose his successor. When Edward VI realised he was dying, and would not make it to an age to marry and father children, he created a will to sort the succession, and amended it three times. The final form would settle the crown on her head.
The case for her legitimacy as his heiress was simple and, in theory, legally had precedent. His father’s will, ratified by parliament (that’s important), had settled the succession question to him and his sisters. But those sisters, the future Queens Mary and Elizabeth, were legal bastards. Since illegitimate had no rights to inherit property -let alone the crown- and Edward himself was King now, he sought to rectify what he saw as an incorrect choice. His elder aunt’s descendants, Mary, Queen of Scots and the family of Margaret Douglas, were foreign nationals, so of course were removed from consideration. The children of the English marriage of the younger aunt were obviously next in line. Except…they weren’t.
This is where the case of Edward VI’s succession device gets confusing. Up until Frances Grey, all arguments against potential successors make sense. Mary and Elizabeth Tudor were illegitimate. Mary Stuart and Margaret Douglas (and her kids) weren’t English at all. But Frances was an English Duchess, and perfectly legitimate. But she was still overlooked in favour of her daughter.
Historians have made guesses as to why that is. Some think it was an age issue. In 1553, Frances was an ancient thirty-six, and her last surviving child had been born eight years previously. The original document drawn up by King Edward explicitly named her “heirs male”, meaning that he hoped to live long enough to see her produce a son. But clearly, that wasn’t happening. By the standards of the day, she was considered too far gone. Frances would, in irony, go on to have at least three more pregnancies by her second husband after Edward’s death.
The other argument, and the one I prefer, is that everyone thought her first and then-living husband was a fuck-up.
The next device then specified that his heirs would be the sons of Frances’ eldest daughter, Jane, who was hastily married to the son of Edward’s chief minister, Guildford Dudley. But Jane, at 16, didn’t immediately fall pregnant, so a dying Edward had to make his mind up. And his mind fell to Jane. Much like how Viscerys settled on his daughter, despite all legal precedent leaning against her, Edward chose his favoured cousin over all other options.
But here’s where it gets trickier.
None of these documents were seen or accepted by parliament. Mostly because they weren’t in session at the time. This meant that the King’s will alone would have to be enough to force the issue.
Edward’s entire catalyst for pushing for a different heir, like his father’s sextuple marriages before him, was to prevent a female succession. Not just because of misogyny (although there’s plenty of that in this story), but because of Europe’s messy history of female rulers, and the men that stood against them. Jane, as a young girl married into a family Edward had allied himself with, was a last resort.
We’ve already discussed the issues surrounding the claims of the Empress Matilda, and the messy narratives surrounding Henry VIII and the Great Matter, but England had, at this point, settled upon a consistent rule. The nearest male heir was King. He could inherit through a female line, but he had to be a he.
In 1553, there simply was no male heir. Or at least none who made sense.
Compare this to Westeros in the Dance of the Dragons, where a rule was set in place with the passing over of Princess Rhaenys. The senior male heir over the senior female heir. Clearly still in affect by the time of the show’s beginning considering Daemon had to be passed over. Once laws are set, they’re assumed to be followed. A son further complicates matters, and the continued decision to hold Rhaenyra as heir, would be considered an odd and legally tricky one. Enough so to start a war.
Without spoiling the show for the books, precedent matters, and monarchical succession is surprisingly delicate. Part of the reason Elizabeth was also passed over by Edward was the necessity of legal cleanliness. If one bastard sister had to go, both did. But in Westeros, we’re getting the additional drama of a living reminder that this succession has been settled against before. It is not only insulting, but in many ways, arrogant. And unlike the accession of previous Targaryen monarchs, both sides have dragons. There is no trump card here.
Ultimately, it comes down to what succession of a monarchy is meant to achieve. Is it:
(a) To settle the best ruler for the people on the throne
OR
(b) To maintain the power and prestige of the ruling dynasty without argument
This is not a trick question, the answer is B.
Like as with the office of the President, much fuss is made over maintaining a simple and obvious handover of power. The swiftness to which the supposedly beloved Queen Elizabeth II was moved on from to ensure the security of Charles III on the throne is a testament to this. A monarchy is an institution, not a personal possession. When you treat it as such, you cause civil war and destruction.
When Henry VIII created his line of succession, he did two things to make it easy on everyone. He essentially followed what would have happened if he wasn’t a dick to each and every wife, and he made the country agree to it beforehand. Which is essentially how Viscerys came to the throne as well. It is important, even as King, to have the support of the ruling class. You cannot rule over nothing and no one. That’s how you start a war.
To return to Jane Grey, her story ended tragically. That “Nine Days Queen” moniker didn’t come out of nowhere. Having entered the Tower of London to prepare for her coronation, she was to remain as a prisoner. While Mary Tudor attempted to have her convert to Catholicism and save her life, she died a Protestant martyr, mostly in order to secure Mary’s personally tragic Spanish marriage. Her sisters, Catherine and Mary Grey, would both wind up being entangled in succession drama under Elizabeth I of England.
Both died sadly young.
Elizabeth would be only the second English monarch to choose her successor (the first started the Anarchy with Empress Matilda - so this wasn’t a happy moment). Not spoiled for choice, she followed her father’s lead and picked the obvious candidate, her cousin, James VI of Scotland.
Again, without spoilers, HotD will have no such easy finish.
Select bibliography
Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery by Eric Ives - link
The Children of Henry VIII by John Guy - link
Children of England by Alison Weir - link